DINIO v.

LAGUESMA
June 9, 1997 | Kapunan, J. | Special Civil Action: Certiorari | Labor Injunction - TRO

PETITIONER/S: GAMALIEL DINIO, ERNESTO MANGAHAS, EDGAR S. VINSON & PARTY FOR REFORM (PFR)

RESPONDENT/S: HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, COMMITTEE ON ELECTION (represented by Danilo Picadizo),

NATIONAL OFFICERS OF PCI BANK. EMPLOYEES UNION, MEMBERS OF THE COMELEC-PCIBEU

SUMMARY: Petitioners filed a petition for injunction and TRO to prevent the conduct of the union elections two days before the
scheduled elections. Med-Arbiter granted the petition but only the elections in Metro Manila was suspended. After the 20-day period
of the TRO lapsed, elections were held, so petitioners moved to have the election nullified. Med-Arbiter nullified the election results.
The Unions Committee on Elections appealed to Usec Laguesma, w/c reversed the Med-Arbiters orders, ruling that there was no
grave or irreparable damage to petitioners to entitle them to injunctive relief. SC upheld Usec Laguesmas decision.
DOCTRINE: The issuance of a TRO is addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-Arbiter. However, this discretion should be
exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. In the case of labor injunctions or TRO, one may issue only in
instances where the complainant or applicant will suffer grave or irreparable damages.

moved to another date.

FACTS: 7. PFR alleged that PCIBEU-Comelec was not validly

1. The election of a new set of union officers of PCI Bank
Employees Union (PCIBEU) was scheduled on Jan.
31, 1992 following the expiration of the terms of
office of the incumbent officers and in accordance
with the latter's CBL.
2. The 2 union parties vying for the various officer
positions are the Party for Progress and Unity (PPU)
headed by Elmer Nanadiego and the Party for
Reform (PFR) whose standard bearer was Gamaliel
Dinio.
constituted; there was failure to issue the necessary
election guidelines; official ballots were dispatched to
the provincial branches without PFRs knowledge;
and that there is reasonable ground to believe that
there will be election rigging in favor of the other
party.
8. Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap issued the TRO. Only the
elections in Metro Manila, however, was suspended.
Union elections proceeded as scheduled in the
provincial branches.

3. The PCIBEU Board of Directors passed a Board
Resolution formally forming the Committee on
Election (Comelec). The resolution was signed by all
board members except Dinio, Edgar Vinson and
Dominador Domingo.
4. Incumbent PCIBEU President, Elmer Nanadiego,
informed the union members through a letter dated
Jan. 6, 1992 of the scheduled union elections and the
formation of the PCIBEU-Comelec. On Jan. 8, 1992,
Comelec issued the election guidelines.
5. Thereafter, PFR and PPU announced the names of their
respective candidates, filed the corresponding
certificates of candidacy and the election campaign
commenced.
6. However, on Jan. 29, 1992, PFR filed with the BLR a
petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of
TRO to enjoin the PCIBEU-Comelec from
supervising and administering the union elections;
and prayed that the BLR create a special team to
supervise the elections; and that the elections be
9. PCIBEU-Comelec rescheduled the union elections in
Metro Manila to Feb. 28, 1992 on grounds that the
20-day period of the TRO had lapsed. After the
elections in Manila were finally held and the overall
results canvassed, the names of the elected union
officers were declared, w/ Nanadiego being elected as
President, among others.
10. PFR filed another petition for the Issuance of Writ of
Injunction, to cite PCIBEU-Comelec members in
contempt and to nullify the election for being invalid.
The Med-Arbiter declared the election results as null
and void.
11. PCIBEU-Comelec filed a MR/ Appeal. DOLE
Undersec Bienvenido E. Laguesma granted the
appeal. declared that the TRO issued by the Med-
Arbiter had no force and effect and PFR failed to
hurdle the test of "grave or irreparable damage." He
also upheld the validity of the union elections.
ISSUE: WoN th issuance of the TRO was proper - NO
RULING: Petition dismissed.
RATIO:
Petitioners contend that the validity of the TRO was not an issue
raised on appeal to Usec Laguesma, thus the latter should not have
ruled on the matter. While unassigned errors or questions not
specifically raised may not be considered on appeal, such rule is
subject to exceptions. In Garrido v. CA, SC held that an unassigned
error closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which the
determination of the question properly assigned is dependent, may be
considered by the appellate court. In Korean Airlines v. CA, SC held
that the Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even
if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.
The present case falls squarely under said exceptions. In the
performance of his duties, the public respondent should not be
shackled by stringent rules, if to do so would result in manifest
injustice.
1. The issuance of a TRO is addressed to the sound
discretion of the Med-Arbiter. However, this
discretion should be exercised based upon the
grounds and in the manner provided by law." In the
case of labor injunctions or TRO, one may issue only
in instances where the complainant or applicant will
suffer grave or irreparable damage.
2. The 1st petition for injunction and TRO on Jan. 29,
1992 was manifestly insufficient to show grave or
irreparable injury. Petitioners alleged that the
PCIBEU-Comelec was illegally constituted, yet, they
unhesitatingly participated in the pre-election process
(announced their candidates, actively campaigned for
them, even filed their CoCs in compliance with the
directives of PCIBEU-Comelec).
3. As held by Usec Laguesma, damage is considered
"irreparable" if it is of such constant and frequent
recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be
had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no
standard by which their amount can be measured
with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible
of mathematical computation.
4. The conduct of said union election may not be said to
cause "grave or irreparable" damage to petitioners
considering that any complaint or question on the
conduct of the election maybe the subject of protest.
On the contrary, considering that the petition for
issuance of a writ of injunction was filed barely two
days before the date set for the conduct of the
election, when the election materials were already
readied and the other mechanics for election had
already been threshed out, to say the least, the
damage that would result would substantially be
more, should the election be postponed to another
indefinite time.
5. Injunctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a
matter of labor relations policy. The right must be
clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be
averted only by the protecting preventive process of
injunction.
6. PCIBEU-Comelec is not estopped from questioning the
TROs validity. The petition for injunction was filed
barely two (2) days before the scheduled elections
and the corresponding TRO was issued a day before
election day. PCIBEU-Comelec hardly had time to
file a formal protest.
7. Since the TRO is held to be invalid, there is no merit in
petitioners contention that the union elections in the
provincial branches are invalid for being conducted
during the time the TRO was in force.
8. Lastly, petitioners argue that the elections in Metro
Manila are null and void even when it was held after
the 20-day period the 20-day rule does not apply to
labor cases, citing B.P. Blg. 224 which states that
"nothing herein contained shall be construed to
impair, affect or modify in any way rights granted by,
or rules pertaining to injunctions contained in,
existing agrarian, labor or social legislation.
9. BP 224 does not exempt labor cases from the 20-day
limit rule. Rather, it leaves it up to labor laws to
provide their own rules concerning injunctions and
TROs. In Art. 218 (now 224) Labor Code, TROs
issued in labor disputes also have a lifetime of only
twenty (20) days.
10. Its worth mentioning that the DOLE representatives
who were tasked to observe the proceedings signed a
certification attesting that the union elections held
was "generally clean, honest and peaceful from the
casting of votes to actual canvassing.